Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: NDP, LIB, Green, would repeal bill c-36

  1. #1
    Administrator Fred Zed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    UP ABOVE SMILING
    Posts
    1,492

    NDP, LIB, Green, would repeal bill c-36

    https://nowtoronto.com/news/election...-sex-work-law/

    At Thursday night's Proud to Vote debate, NDP, Liberal, and Green representatives pledged that their respective parties would repeal Bill C-36, the Conservatives' anti-sex-work law, if they form government. The issue, which had barely been mentioned in this election, is apparently a matter of importance for all three of them.
    The LGBTQ issues forum, held in the cabaret space at Buddies in Bad Times Theatre, invited each party to send a candidate of their choice, regardless of the riding in which they're running. And so there was Craig Scott, the NDP incumbent in Toronto-Danforth, facing off against the Greens' Chris Tolley from the same riding as well as Bill Morneau, the Liberal hopeful in Toronto Centre. The Conservatives opted not to send a delegate, which was both unsurprising and somewhat frustrating, given that as recently as last month the party was literally waving the LGBT banner. The CPC place on the stage was left empty, with moderator Brenda Cossman asking off the top that participants "not engage in a kind of Clint Eastwood debate with the chair."
    The Conservatives appear to have nevertheless noticed the event, with Jason Kenney suddenly invoking C-36 as a wedge issue the next day. The new law, written in response to the Supreme Court's 2013 decision to strike down certain earlier statutes that endangered the lives of sex workers, flew in the face of the ruling by going even further to criminalize sex work and push those who practice it underground. NOW Magazine is part of a coalitionopposing the law, which also criminalizes the placement of sex advertisements by third parties.

    (My partner is the co-founder of one of the 10 groups that organized the debate.)
    Here are candidates' complete responses to the question of what to do about C-36, minus those parts of their answers that were drowned out by applause. Below that are a handful of other highlights from the debate, touching on a range of issues that directly or indirectly affect LGBTQ people.

    Xtra's Kevin O’Keefe: Recently, Bill C-36, which was ostensibly created to protect sex workers, passed through our last government. However, sex-worker advocacy groups have criticized the bill as unduly endangering the lives and livelihoods of sex workers. Will your party look at revising or repealing this bill?
    Scott (NDP): We fought it very hard, just as we had C-51 and the “Unfair Elections Act,” and there’s no way — as Tom [Mulcair] said with respect to another subject two days ago — there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that we would allow that legislation to stay on the books. It’s done. There’s a couple starting points, but one of them has to be, when the Supreme Court exercises moral leadership within a constitutional framework and sets out principles that everybody can use as a reference point for good-faith debate about what the best approach is and that it’s totally ignored, for purposes of nothing but playing to the base — throwing blue meat, if you like, out to the base — was one of the worst experiences of my three years since being elected. And it was my privilege to be part of the team, even though I’m on another committee, to be called in on occasion to lead some of the questioning on the bill that completely, completely does not understand the idea of sex workers’ rights. So absolutely you’ll see an NDP government making sure that we figure out what to do with the Supreme Court judgment that does not involve keeping this legislation.


    Morneau (Liberal): Well, on this there’s no disagreement. We would want to get rid of this bill just as the NDP would, and think that — now, I know there’s no Conservative here — but think that this is a continuing approach that the Conservatives seem to be doing, which is dismissing our courts and dismissing the judgments of our Supreme Court on issues that really matter to Canadians. So this is completely unacceptable. It’s a bill that puts people in danger, and we would not stand for it.

    Tolley (Green): Repeal it. We would repeal it. We feel that the most important thing is the legislation has to be there to protect the sex workers; it’s not about protecting the public. We need to talk and formulate legislation with sex workers. Right now, we prefer the model that’s based on the New Zealand model — a very, very strong model. We would prefer something along those lines, where basically what you’re doing is you’re protecting the sex workers, not criminalizing it. At the same time, we need to also have structures in place so that if somebody does want to leave the business, they have the support and the ability to live any life that they want. At the end of the day, everybody has free choice, and we just need to make sure that everybody is protected and safe.

    Moderator Cossman (a U of T law professor and director of the school's Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies): So on this question, I actually risk turning into Clint Eastwood and just saying “Shame on that chair. Shame.”
    "Oh, so they have internet on computers now!" - Homer J.

  2. #2
    Administrator Fred Zed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    UP ABOVE SMILING
    Posts
    1,492
    À jeudi soir de fiers de voter débat, NPD, libéral, et des représentants verts promis que leurs partis respectifs pourraient abroger la loi C-36, la loi anti-travail du sexe des conservateurs, si elles forment le gouvernement. La question, qui avait été à peine mentionné dans cette élection, est apparemment une question d'importance pour tous les trois d'entre eux.
    Le Forum des questions LGBTQ, tenue à l'espace de cabaret au Buddies in Bad Times Theatre, a invité chaque partie à envoyer un candidat de leur choix, indépendamment de la circonscription dans laquelle ils courent. Et il n'y avait donc Craig Scott, le titulaire du NPD à Toronto-Danforth, affrontant les Verts 'Chris Tolley de la même circonscription ainsi que le projet de loi Morneau, l'espoir libéral de Toronto-Centre. Les conservateurs ont choisi de ne pas envoyer un délégué, qui était à la fois surprenant et quelque peu frustrante, étant donné que récemment que le mois dernier le parti a été littéralement agitant la bannière LGBT. L'endroit PCC sur la scène a été laissé vide, avec modérateur Brenda Cossman demandant sur le dessus que les participants "ne pas se livrer à une sorte de débat Clint Eastwood avec le président."
    Les conservateurs semblent avoir néanmoins remarqué l'événement, avec Jason Kenney invoquant soudainement C-36 comme une question de coin le lendemain. La nouvelle loi, écrite en réponse à 2013 la décision de la Cour suprême d'invalider certaines lois antérieures qui mettaient en danger la vie des travailleurs du sexe, allait à l'encontre de la décision en allant encore plus loin pour criminaliser le travail du sexe et pousser ceux qui la pratiquent souterrain. NOW Magazine fait partie d'un coalitionopposing la loi, qui criminalise aussi le placement de publicités de sexe par des tiers.


    Voici des réponses complètes des candidats à la question de ce qu'il faut faire à propos de C-36, moins les parties de leurs réponses qui ont été noyés par des applaudissements. Ci-dessous, qui sont une poignée d'autres faits saillants du débat, touchant sur un éventail de questions qui touchent directement ou indirectement les personnes LGBTQ.
    Kevin O'Keefe Xtra: Récemment, le projet de loi C-36, qui a été ostensiblement créé pour protéger les travailleurs du sexe, passé à travers notre dernier gouvernement. Cependant, les groupes de défense des droits des travailleurs du sexe ont critiqué le projet de loi comme une menace indûment la vie et les moyens de subsistance des travailleurs du sexe. Votre parti chercher à réviser ou d'abroger ce projet de loi?
    Scott (NPD): Nous nous sommes battus très dur, tout comme nous avions C-51 et "Loi électorale déloyale», et il n'y a aucune façon - comme l'a dit Tom [Mulcair] par rapport à un autre sujet, il ya deux jours - il n'y a pas une boule de neige de chance en enfer que nous allions permettre que la législation de rester sur les livres. C'est fait. Il ya quelques points de départ, mais l'un d'eux doit être, lorsque la Cour suprême exerce un leadership moral dans un cadre constitutionnel et énonce les principes que tout le monde peut l'utiliser comme un point de bonne foi débat sur ce que la meilleure approche est et que la référence il est totalement ignoré, à des fins de rien, mais en jouant à la base - jetant de la viande bleue, si vous voulez, sur la base - a été l'une des pires expériences de mes trois ans depuis son élection. Et ce fut pour moi un privilège de faire partie de l'équipe, même si je suis sur un autre comité, d'être appelé à l'occasion de diriger une partie du questionnement sur le projet de loi qui complètement, complètement ne comprend pas l'idée de droits des travailleurs du sexe . Donc absolument vous verrez un gouvernement NPD nous assurer que nous comprendre ce qu'il faut faire avec le jugement de la Cour suprême qui ne comporte pas de garder cette législation.




    Morneau (libéral): Eh bien, sur ce il n'y a pas de désaccord. Nous voudrions pour se débarrasser de ce projet de loi tout comme le ferait NPD, et je pense que - maintenant, je sais qu'il n'y a pas de conservateur ici - mais pense que cette approche est la poursuite que les conservateurs semblent faire, qui est rejeté nos tribunaux et rejetant les jugements de la Cour suprême sur les questions qui comptent vraiment pour les Canadiens. Donc, ce qui est totalement inacceptable. Il est un projet de loi qui met les gens en danger, et nous ne l'accepterons pas.


    Tolley (Vert): l'abroger. Nous aimerions l'abroger. Nous pensons que la chose la plus importante est la législation doit être là pour protéger les travailleurs du sexe; il est pas de protéger le public. Nous avons besoin de parler et de formuler une législation avec des travailleurs du sexe. En ce moment, nous préférons le modèle qui est basé sur le modèle de la Nouvelle-Zélande - un modèle très, très forte. Nous préférerions quelque chose le long de ces lignes, où essentiellement ce que vous faites est que vous protégez les travailleurs du sexe, pas criminaliser. Dans le même temps, nous devons avoir aussi des structures en place afin que si quelqu'un ne veut quitter l'entreprise, ils ont le soutien et la capacité de vivre toute la vie qu'ils veulent. À la fin de la journée, tout le monde a le libre choix, et nous devons juste faire en sorte que tout le monde est protégé et en sécurité.


    Modérateur Cossman (U de T professeur de droit et directeur du Centre Mark S. Bonham de l'école pour les études sur la diversité sexuelle): Donc, sur cette question, je risquant effectivement de se transformer en Clint Eastwood et juste en disant "Honte sur cette chaise. Honte. "
    Google Translate for Business:Translator ToolkitWebsite TranslatorGlobal Market Finder
    Turn off instant translationAbout Google TranslateMobile
    "Oh, so they have internet on computers now!" - Homer J.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    4,736
    You would vote for a party that would stop bill C-36 but allow terrorists to keep their passports and allow immagrants to change Canadian laws to suit them... Interesting.
    I do not think outside the box, I do not think inside the box, I do not even know where the box is.

  4. #4
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,824
    And the Liberals have also promised they'll legalize pot. I've been hearing the same promise from those lying bastards since Pierre Trudeau ran back in the 70's!

    I still remember the days when Jean Chretien got elected by vowing he'd get rid of the hated GST. What a bunch of liars! All of them!

  5. #5
    Administrator Fred Zed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    UP ABOVE SMILING
    Posts
    1,492
    [QUOTE = Sol Tee Nutz; 911888] You Would vote for a party That Would Stop Bill C-36 aims to allow terrorists keep immagrants Their passports and allow changes to Canadian laws to follow them ... Interesting [/ QUOTE]


    Do you think maybe that you're misunderstanding the different party platforms ? That said it's of course a democracy, you vote for whichever party you like, or you can even stay at home and not vote.
    "Oh, so they have internet on computers now!" - Homer J.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    4,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Holliday View Post
    What a bunch of liars! All of them!
    Yes they are.......... You need to pick one who lies the least or at least will do the least harm to Canada.
    I do not think outside the box, I do not think inside the box, I do not even know where the box is.

  7. #7
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,824
    By the way, thanks for posting the article, Fred. There is still hope!

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    4,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Zed View Post
    Do you think maybe that you're misunderstanding the different party platforms ? That said it's of course a democracy, you vote for whichever party you like, or you can even stay at home and not vote.
    I misunderstand no party platform. JT has stated that if an immagrant has his canadian citizenship and commits a terrorist act he will not take it away from him, JT also says that Ontario is doing the right thing with their spend their way out of a recession and plans to do the same.... How is that working for Ontario, worse off than Greece. Mulcair is promissing everything to anyone who requests it, recently with the face coverings.. WTF a very high percentage of Canadians oppose that. Mulcair says he will save us with extra taxes and only attack big business, again, do you actually think that big business will not pass the tax on to us, once big business shuts down no one else left to tax but us... happened in Saskatchewan. Look at what the NDP is doing to Alberta, if there was an election tomorrow the NDP would be out of Alberta.
    Do not do the revenge vote like Alberta did, you will be in for a scock of your lifetime.
    I do not think outside the box, I do not think inside the box, I do not even know where the box is.

  9. #9
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,824
    Darn! After reading STN's post, i'm starting to wonder if Harper may not be the best option. And i had sworn that i would never vote for him!

  10. #10
    Administrator Fred Zed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    UP ABOVE SMILING
    Posts
    1,492
    [QUOTE = Sol Tee Nutz; 911901] I misunderstand No party platform. JT HAS Stated That if an immagrant HAS His canadian citizenship and commits a terrorist act he won't take it away from _him_, JT aussi says That Ontario is doing the right thing With Their Spend Their way out of a recession and plan to do the Sami .... How Is That working for Ontario, worse off than Greece. Mulcair is promissing everything to anyone Who requests it, with the face Recently coverings .. WTF very high percentage of Canadians opposes That. Mulcair Says He Will save us with extra taxes and only attack big business, again, do you think That Actually big business won't pass the tax is to us, once big business shuts down no one else left to us ... Happened tax profit in Saskatchewan. Look at what the NDP is doing to Alberta if There Was an election tomorrow the NDP Would Be out of Alberta.
    Do not do the revenge vote like Alberta About did, you Will Be in for a scock of your lifetime. [/ QUOTE]
    Sure , That all terrorists are caught shoulds be put in jail for the rest of Their Lives. What Is Accomplished by deporting em - They Will simply join ISIS and kill more innocent people When They return to their homeland? Not to mention only terrorists with dual nationality can be deported - so I have the law stands Will Work selectively and it is useless for practical Purposes. It's just fear - mongering is Stephen's hand. And while its ok to put terrorists in jail It Does not mean That You shoulds be put away in jail Just Because You Had consensual sex with Reviews another adult.
    "Oh, so they have internet on computers now!" - Homer J.

  11. #11
    i guess im voting liberal lol

  12. #12
    Because of pension going from 65 to 67 Harper needs to be kicked out. He hid that from his program during last campain ... what other surprise he reserved for us??? I dont trust him.

  13. #13
    LOL - so a no-name NDP backbencher along with a couple of no-names from the Liberals and Greens with no authority to speak for their parties state their opposition to C-36 in a "LBGTQ" forum, and some people actually thinks it means something. Remember, C-36 with it's "sex-workers are victims" mantra is straight out of the left-wing feminist playbook. Neither the NDP nor the Liberals will repeal it.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by johnhenrygalt View Post
    LOL - so a no-name NDP backbencher along with a couple of no-names from the Liberals and Greens with no authority to speak for their parties state their opposition to C-36 in a "LBGTQ" forum, and some people actually thinks it means something. Remember, C-36 with it's "sex-workers are victims" mantra is straight out of the left-wing feminist playbook. Neither the NDP nor the Liberals will repeal it.
    Well fuck this bullshit im just gonna spoil my ballot or vote Bloc Québecois

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    4,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Zed View Post
    Sure , That all terrorists are caught shoulds be put in jail for the rest of Their Lives. What Is Accomplished by deporting em - They Will simply join ISIS and kill more innocent people When They return to their homeland? Not to mention only terrorists with dual nationality can be deported - so I have the law stands Will Work selectively and it is useless for practical Purposes. It's just fear - mongering is Stephen's hand. And while its ok to put terrorists in jail It Does not mean That You shoulds be put away in jail Just Because You Had consensual sex with Reviews another adult.
    The law will have immigrants or refugees who come into Canada and get their citizenship then commit an act of terrorism have their citizenship revoked, hopefully be sent back to where thay came from. For me it is hard to see what is wrong with this, under your logic we should keep them here after jail time to start up again ( killing Canadians ). As for fear mongering... it is not, it is just right to deport someone from a foreign land that commits an act of terrorism. canadians bend over backwards enough to immigrants and no need to let convicted terrorists stay as citizens and live in our country.
    As for johns seeing Sp's and being sent to jail, I have not heard a case proving this yet.
    I do not think outside the box, I do not think inside the box, I do not even know where the box is.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •